Linguistic
Linguistic
NIM : 196121170
Class : PBI 3E
Bagaimana Cara Mendorong Hasil Linguistik yang Diinginkan untuk Para Siswa dan
Guru?
Mendorong hasil linguistik yang diinginkan – baik pengetahuan maupun keterampilan yang
diterapkan – diantara siswa dan guru memerlukan pembelajaran lebih tentang proses bahasa,
dan mencari tahu seberapa baik menerapkan apa yang kita tahu. Kita membahas tantangan ini
dalam 4 judul: yang pertama kita membahas cara baru melakukan pendidikan penelitian
termasuk pendidikan linguistik, dan selanjutnya kita menyajikan beberapa domain spesifik di
mana penelitian itu dapat difokuskan.
The global question about language acquisition that might be at the center of a
systematic research agenda for educational linguistics is the following: What is the nature of
the knowledge about language available to a proficient speaker at different stages of
development of oral and literate skills? A corollary of this global question is the following
one: How can we define and assess the more advanced language skills typically developed
during middle childhood and adolescence? If we had the answers to these questions, then
many other troubling issues (e.g., What new language skills are needed to process academic
or disciplinary texts? What are the possibilities for transfer from a first to a second language
and/or literacy system? How should teachers respond to non-standard dialects? What
constitutes good classroom discussion?) would become much more tractable.
Despite the enormous value of the basic work done on language acquisition to
educational linguists, it is important to emphasize that improvements in domains such as
language teaching and language assessment cannot wait for more data and better theories
about either first or second language acquisition. The problems of practice are too large and
too urgent, as emphasized by Jones and Saville (Chapter 35, this volume), for solutions to be
postponed until all the data are collected. Indeed, one of the contributions of practitioners to
research is to provide candidates of excellent practice that can then be subjected to further
study and evaluation, and whose success or failure might inform theory.
Language development researchers, as noted above, have focused primarily on young
children and the major advances in language skills achieved between ages 1 and 3–4 years.
Their work is directly relevant to the practice of early childhood educators and has informed
and improved the design of preschool and parent-involvement programs. Most educators,
though, take those early accomplishments for granted, and concern themselves with later
language development – development of the capacity to engage in classroom discussion, to
produce extended discourse orally and in writing, to acquire sophisticated vocabulary, and
deploy complex grammar. Understanding these later developmental challenges, for students
operating in their first language and for those acquiring a second language, is a task with
which educational linguistics could help. As Hull and Hernandez (Chapter 23, this volume)
point out, adolescent literacy has lately received more attention; however, there are still
numerous gaps to fill in to fully understand how to better serve older students.
As both Jones and Saville (Chapter 35, this volume), and Davies (Chapter 34, this
volume) discuss, language proficiency becomes broader and more multidimensional at later
ages/grades. Therefore the challenge of assessing these more sophisticated language skills
also increases. Yet, in the accountabilitydriven world of education, developing assessments
for these more sophisticated language skills is key, because if they are not assessed, they are
unlikely to be attended to in the classroom. Furthermore, decisions about placement of
second language learners in mainstream classrooms should depend on valid assessments of
their ability to comprehend and produce the academic language needed for success in those
classrooms; it is still the case that second language proficiency tests often focus on basic
rather than academic language skills, and thus, exit students who are unprepared for the tasks
they will face in mainstream classrooms (Kieffer, Lesaux, & Snow, 2006).
Particularly when thinking about older learners, for whom language and literacy skills
are the gateway to all learning, the need to integrate instruction and assessment becomes
urgent. We agree with Huhta (Chapter 33, this volume) on the need to develop diagnostic
assessments that inform teacher practice and allow for ongoing feedback between teacher and
students. If, as claimed by Reaser and Adger, it is true that linguists and educational linguists
are becoming interested in collaborating with educators to produce practical assessments and
materials for classroom use, then the gap that currently exists in the availability of materials
on language variation could be filled productively. Indeed, recent collaborations among
linguists, educational linguists, and practitioners in the design and production of instructional
materials and assessment have started to produce successful results (Labov and Baker, 2001,
quoted by Reaser and Adger, Chapter 12, this volume).
Questions that arise, then, include the following: What are the key characteristics of
academic language needed for success in the middle and secondary grades? How can these
language skills best be taught? Do students benefit from instructional attention to these skills
as oral language in the primary or even preschool years? Do students who have acquired
academic language skills in a first language transfer useful knowledge of them to a second
language, and if so, under what circumstances and for what combinations of first and second
languages?
A recurrent issue in language teaching is the motivation of learners. Motivation is a
complicated issue in foreign language classes, in which the lack of a positive reason to master
the language might well be compounded by all sorts of negative motivations, e.g.,
embarrassment, fear of making errors, loss of self-esteem, or difficulty of an honorable self-
presentation during the early stages of language learning (see McKinney & Norton, Chapter
14, this volume). Motivation can also play a role in learners’ willingness to shift from a non-
standard to a standard dialect (see Mesthrie, Chapter 6, this volume), or to adopt the academic
language features desired for classroom discussion and for literacy.
There has been considerable research done showing the impact of motivation on
second/foreign language learning and exploring the interaction between types of motivation
and social setting in determining outcomes. However, the extension of these ideas to issues of
identity construction withina first language has not yet happened. Within the various content
areas, there is growing attention to important questions of the form: What does it mean to
speak/write like a historian or a scientist? What language skills are involved,and how
distinctive are they for the different content areas? The motivationrelated question that
accompanies these is: How do we create classroom conditions under which students are
motivated to acquire academic identities and the language skills associated with them?
Raising issues of identity and motivation also alerts us to the degree to which research
in educational linguistics has focused on some populations and language varieties to the
exclusion of others. The research agenda would not be complete without an urgent call for the
inclusion of those neglected populations and language varieties, as highlighted by various
authors in this volume:
• Reaser and Adger (Chapter 12) for non-standard varieties beyond African American
English;
• Supalla and Cripps (Chapter 13) for deaf children;
• McCarty, Skutnabb-Kangas, and Magga (Chapter 21) for endangered languages in
different parts of the world;
• King and Benson (Chapter 24) for indigenous languages;
• Hull and Hernandez (Chapter 23) with a more general call to study diverse cultures,
ethnicities, social classes, and gender.
As evidenced by these various calls, there is still a long list of populations awaiting
researchers’ attention.
The richness and breadth of the work presented in this volume emphasize the value of
greater clarity about the definition of educational linguistics, its goals, and the fundamental
questions with which it should grapple. Educational linguistics lies at the intersection of
research on education and research on applied linguistics (see LoBianco, Chapter 9, this
volume). While Applied Linguistics is the branch of linguistics that uses linguistic theory to
address real-world problems, Educational Linguistics is the branch of Applied Linguistics
that addresses real-world problems in education. By far the largest subfield within
educational linguistics has always been the study of second language acquisition and second
language teaching, and the rich accomplishments of that subfield are reflected in the several
chapters devoted to it in this volume. However, educational linguistics is much broader in
scope than just second/foreign language teaching. In fact, as argued by van Lier (Chapter 42,
this volume), it should encompass all academic learning mediated by language in one form or
another.
We have argued that educational linguistics needs on the one hand to narrow its focus
to pay particular attention to the most pressing real-world educational problems, and on the
other hand to expand its focus beyond language teaching/learning to an understanding of how
language mediates all educational encounters. Furthermore, in studying the role of language
in all learning and teaching, it is extremely helpful to remember the continuum proposed by
Bailey, Burkett, and Freeman (Chapter 43, this volume): from learning situations in which the
language used is transparent to all concerned (teacher and students share a language and
students control the academic language of the classroom) to situations were language use is
opaque (students are still learning the basics of the classroom language, even as learning
through that language is expected). Intermediate points on that continuum, where most
students and teachers probably find themselves, represent differing degrees of translucency –
i.e., students and teacher share a language but not necessarily all the specific linguistic
features that characterize disciplinary, metacognitive, or classroom language use. Identifying
the situations where lack of shared language knowledge interferes with learning, and
characterizing helpful approaches to those situations, in the form of pedagogical strategies,
curricular adjustments, student commitments, or reorganization of learning settings, is the
common and urgent challenge for educational linguists.
Still, well-replicated findings in SLA or FL research generate hypotheses about
language learning more broadly defined that deserve attention. These findings might be of
particular relevance to issues that arise when classrooms serve children from multiple
language backgrounds, for example those that emerge in thinking about Walter’s (Chapter 10,
this volume) question about what happens when the child does not speak the language of the
classroom.
Upaya untuk membuat pengaturan pendidikan yang berfungsi seperti rumah sakit pendidikan,
Kemitraan (SERP; Donovan, Wigdor, & Snow, 2003) telah membentuk 'bidang
peduli dan membangun solusi bersama dengan peneliti yang melihat diri mereka sendiri
sebagai insinyur yang membangun alat untuk memecahkan masalah praktik. Kebutuhan
untuk
ahli bahasa pendidikan untuk bekerja dalam pengaturan seperti itu jelas, karena banyak dari
Misalnya, di situs lapangan SERP yang didirikan di Sekolah Umum Boston, file
Masalah utama yang menjadi perhatian adalah pemahaman membaca siswa sekolah
menengah, di
wacana teks area konten. Of course, many of the “big ideas” commonly assumed to be true in
the community of educational linguists need to be made more particular if they are to
influence educational practice. For example, the claim that L1 instruction has a positive effect
comprehension, are generally accepted as true, but what do they actually mean for classroom
practice?
The two areas into which Hudson (Chapter 5, this volume) divides theory
are of great relevance to thinking about how researchers (including linguistic theorists), practitioners, and policy
makers might enter into a more fruitful
dialogue. Hudson distinguishes between ideas and models, the former being
much less controversial than the latter. He defines ideas as concepts about the
nature of language, which for the most part represent “issues on which linguists can agree.” For instance, all
linguists agree that language skills continue
to develop into adulthood, although they might disagree on why and how
these skills change; they also all agree that various language skills (phonology,
vocabulary, grammar, pragmatics) are separable and perhaps even uncorrelated.
Models “exist at the frontier of research” as they provide alternative explanations that are controversial by
nature. As pointed out by Hudson, linguists are
concerned with models, and their debates about models often obscure their
agreement on big ideas. Whereas linguists and developmental psychologists
can argue about the specifics of varied theoretical models, the job of educational linguistics is not to seek proofs
for theoretical formulations, but to generate relevant ideas for educational practice. If elucidating what teachers,
students, policy makers, and other educational participants need to know about
language to achieve successful outcomes is the goal, then focusing on ideas
instead of models offers a wise solution. Ideas, as Hudson points out, however, are not easily inferred from
theoretical linguistic writings; linguists could
contribute to education by spelling out the key ideas clearly. Indeed, collaborations among theoretical and
educational linguists could prove mutually
advantageous as ideas relevant to educational practice are identified, and as
real data from students challenge those ideas and offer evidence on which
more comprehensive linguistic models might be built.
The global question about language acquisition that might be at the center
of a systematic research agenda for educational linguistics is the following:
What is the nature of the knowledge about language available to a proficient
speaker at different stages of development of oral and literate skills? A corollary of this global question is the
following one: How can we define and assess
the more advanced language skills typically developed during middle childhood and adolescence? If we had the
answers to these questions, then many
other troubling issues (e.g., What new language skills are needed to process
academic or disciplinary texts? What are the possibilities for transfer from a
first to a second language and/or literacy system? How should teachers respond to non-standard dialects? What
constitutes good classroom discussion?)
would become much more tractable.
Despite the enormous value of the basic work done on language acquisition
to educational linguists, it is important to emphasize that improvements in
domains such as language teaching and language assessment cannot wait for
more data and better theories about either first or second language acquisition.
The problems of practice are too large and too urgent, as emphasized by Jones
and Saville (Chapter 35, this volume), for solutions to be postponed until all
the data are collected. Indeed, one of the contributions of practitioners to
research is to provide candidates of excellent practice that can then be subjected to further study and evaluation,
and whose success or failure might
inform theory.
As both Jones and Saville (Chapter 35, this volume), and Davies (Chapter 34,
this volume) discuss, language proficiency becomes broader and more multidimensional at later ages/grades.
Therefore the challenge of assessing these
more sophisticated language skills also increases. Yet, in the accountabilitydriven world of education,
developing assessments for these more sophisticated language skills is key, because if they are not assessed,
they are
unlikely to be attended to in the classroom. Furthermore, decisions about
placement of second language learners in mainstream classrooms should
depend on valid assessments of their ability to comprehend and produce
the academic language needed for success in those classrooms; it is still the
case that second language proficiency tests often focus on basic rather
than academic language skills, and thus, exit students who are unprepared for
the tasks they will face in mainstream classrooms (Kieffer, Lesaux, & Snow,
2006).
Particularly when thinking about older learners, for whom language and
literacy skills are the gateway to all learning, the need to integrate instruction and assessment becomes urgent.
We agree with Huhta (Chapter 33, this
volume) on the need to develop diagnostic assessments that inform teacher
practice and allow for ongoing feedback between teacher and students. If,
as claimed by Reaser and Adger, it is true that linguists and educational
linguists are becoming interested in collaborating with educators to produce practical assessments and materials
for classroom use, then the gap
that currently exists in the availability of materials on language variation
could be filled productively. Indeed, recent collaborations among linguists,
educational linguists, and practitioners in the design and production of
instructional materials and assessment have started to produce successful
results (Labov and Baker, 2001, quoted by Reaser and Adger, Chapter 12, this
volume).
Questions that arise, then, include the following: What are the key characteristics of academic language needed
for success in the middle and secondary
grades? How can these language skills best be taught? Do students benefit
from instructional attention to these skills as oral language in the primary or
even preschool years? Do students who have acquired academic language
skills in a first language transfer useful knowledge of them to a second language, and if so, under what
circumstances and for what combinations of first
and second languages?
A recurrent issue in language teaching is the motivation of learners. Motivation is a complicated issue in foreign
language classes, in which the lack of
a positive reason to master the language might well be compounded by
all sorts of negative motivations, e.g., embarrassment, fear of making errors,
loss of self-esteem, or difficulty of an honorable self-presentation during the
early stages of language learning (see McKinney & Norton, Chapter 14, this
volume). Motivation can also play a role in learners’ willingness to shift from
a non-standard to a standard dialect (see Mesthrie, Chapter 6, this volume),
or to adopt the academic language features desired for classroom discussion
and for literacy.
There has been considerable research done showing the impact of motivation on second/foreign language
learning and exploring the interaction
between types of motivation and social setting in determining outcomes.
However, the extension of these ideas to issues of identity construction within
a first language has not yet happened. Within the various content areas, there
is growing attention to important questions of the form: What does it mean to
speak/write like a historian or a scientist? What language skills are involved,
and how distinctive are they for the different content areas? The motivationrelated question that accompanies
these is: How do we create classroom
conditions under which students are motivated to acquire academic identities
and the language skills associated with them?
Raising issues of identity and motivation also alerts us to the degree to
which research in educational linguistics has focused on some populations
and language varieties to the exclusion of others. The research agenda would
not be complete without an urgent call for the inclusion of those neglected
populations and language varieties, as highlighted by various authors in this
volume:
• Reaser and Adger (Chapter 12) for non-standard varieties beyond African
American English;
• Supalla and Cripps (Chapter 13) for deaf children;
• McCarty, Skutnabb-Kangas, and Magga (Chapter 21) for endangered
languages in different parts of the world;
• King and Benson (Chapter 24) for indigenous languages;
• Hull and Hernandez (Chapter 23) with a more general call to study diverse
cultures, ethnicities, social classes, and gender.
As evidenced by these various calls, there is still a long list of populations
awaiting researchers’ attention.
The richness and breadth of the work presented in this volume emphasize the
value of greater clarity about the definition of educational linguistics, its goals,
and the fundamental questions with which it should grapple. Educational
linguistics lies at the intersection of research on education and research on
applied linguistics (see LoBianco, Chapter 9, this volume). While Applied
Linguistics is the branch of linguistics that uses linguistic theory to address
real-world problems, Educational Linguistics is the branch of Applied Linguistics that addresses real-world
problems in education. By far the largest
subfield within educational linguistics has always been the study of second
language acquisition and second language teaching, and the rich accomplishments of that subfield are reflected
in the several chapters devoted to it in this
volume. However, educational linguistics is much broader in scope than just
second/foreign language teaching. In fact, as argued by van Lier (Chapter 42,
this volume), it should encompass all academic learning mediated by language in one form or another.